[PnP] re P&P review on RPGnet

[Alex Koponen]

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14807.phtml  has a review of P&P 
that rates P&P somewhat poorer than I would rate P&P. My response:

As a long time player and GM in the Powers & Perils game I do NOT agree 
with the review. Factually correct, it leaves an erroneous impression 
about the game. Granted the artwork is nothing to rave about...the 
artwork doesn't really matter. Lev Lafayette appears to dislike the 
writing style...a style using the numbered rules style familiar to 
players of other Avalon Hill games of the era. Business like, even 
prosaic, it is effective for easy reference. Unlike some other games 
that try to give a feel or set a tone through lots of added fiction, but 
thereby make it harder to find rules when a question arises about them.

Mr. Lafayette appears to have not gotten the P&P Book of Tables 
supplement that among other things sets values to the natural magic 
items and corrects what few relevant typos there were. I MUST argue with 
his statement that "The task resolution system lacks consistency with 
every skill having it's own resolution method." This is incorrect. There 
are basically three common (One for combat and two for non-combat 
skills) and two uncommon resolution methods.

Yes, there is math involved. The calculations aren't hard, the results 
can be written down and reused again and again until with an increase in 
the character's power or skill the calculations can be redone for the 
new improved numbers.

Mr. Lafayette stated "The lack of a universal and intuitive system 
resulted in too much checking of the game rules for specific cases." 
Contrast this with my take on P&P. I was an experienced game player when 
I bought it in 1984. It has a STEEP learning curve. It took me two weeks 
to grasp the elegance and ultimate simplicity of the design. Once I 
learned the rules I needed no more looking at the rules than I did for 
any other system. I believe that Mr. Lafayette simply did not study the 
game deeply enough to understand the system fully, or his review would 
have reflected that fact.

         Alex Koponen